The government released new details today of a study on their impending bonkers ad ban, which, despite all previous evidence that such illiberal clampdowns don’t work, they hoped would justify the move. The government’s own research suggests an ad ban will reduce children’s calories consumption by just 2.8 calories per day. 

2.8 calories per day per child would – assuming no exercise – add 1 pound per three and a half years – and all for the destruction of thousands of small and medium businesses, and depressing the advertising industry. Not only is a 2.8 calorie reduction pathetic, the ASI’s Matthew Lesh points out even this is likely to be an exaggeration:

“The review that the Government’s calculations are based on – Viner et. al (2019) – does not contain any studies that simulate a realistic environment in which children are exposed to ‘junk food’ advertisements. In all of the 11 studies included, children were allowed to consume an unlimited quantity of food at no cost and none featured parental supervision.”

The government’s figures also calculate the advertising market – for what Whitehall refers to as “high fat, sugar and salt (HFSS)” – is £438 million (59% of the total online food and drink advertising market) with a hit to online platforms of £271 million per year.

With around 11 million children from 5–18, the UK government is set to sacrifice £813 million of online advertising revenue in return for one pound lost per child. Turns out this weight loss malarkey isn’t as easy as just taking candy from a baby…

The Government this week published its consultation on banning online advertising for so-called ‘junk food’. Guido has reported before how there is no legal definition of ‘junk food’, and regulations would end up banning yoghurts, pesto, and raisins. Now the madness is spreading to a much more pervasive sphere than TV or the tube – online. The original plans were to ban the promotion tasty food online before the 9pm watershed, but now this has morphed into a total and complete shutdown. Banning ads for everyone from Wedding Cake businesses to local bakeries…

Disregarding the wider question of is it in the public interest to further undermine the media which is already struggling with reduced advertising revenues, the IEA’s Chris Snowdon details many ridiculosities of the new proposal in a must read blog. One striking example would be the banning of adverts for coronation chicken in time for the Queen’s newly announced four day Platinum Jubilee Holiday (Thursday June 2 to Friday June 5, 2022). Brits would be forbidden from including coronation chicken or commemorative shortbread in ads to celebrate the occasion. That’s just un-British.

Hugo Swire’s wife caused quite a stir with her cracking diary detailing the behind-the-scenes joys of the Cameron chumocracy.  A bemused co-conspirator, Tony Colvin, got in touch to query these advertisements running on Guido. For Hugo…

They invite you to find out what Hugo Swire MP is doing for East Devon. Not very much Guido suspects, given he stood down as an MP in 2019. Which meant he fortunately didn’t have to face irritated and embarrassed Tory colleagues. The local Tory MP is now Simon Jupp.

These are Google adverts bought programmatically. Presumably a year after the campaign ended somebody is still automatically paying for them on their card – hopefully not the taxpayer. As much as Guido appreciates the revenue, perhaps somebody, somewhere, ought to cancel the order?

New government measures proposed yesterday will mean political parties and campaigners must explicitly show who they are when promoting campaign content online, and according to surveys this has overwhelming public support. The proposals call for digital imprints to apply to all types of campaign content regardless of the country it is being promoted from, across all digital platforms. The regime is also intended to apply at all times, not just during elections.

The editor will declare an interest here, he has since 2007 had a financial interest in a digital advertising agency that has worked for all the major parties at one time or another; unions, charities, single-issue campaigns and blue-chip corporates who want to influence politicos. He’s been involved in the digital side of referendum campaigns, two mayoral campaigns for a chap who went on to greater things and election campaigns around the world. Having bought and sold countless billions of political adverts for over a decade, here are some observations about the government’s proposals to make political advertising more transparent:

• More transparency about who is paying for advertising is a good thing.
• The Electoral Commission rightly says: “We are not in a position to monitor the truthfulness of campaign claims, online or otherwise. However, changing the law so that digital material has to have an imprint will help voters to assess the credibility of campaign messages. Voters will know who the source is and be more able to decide how credible it is.” This is wise, the voters are the ones charged in a democracy to decide truthfulness.
• The £100,000 third-party spending limit in England is anti-democratic. If the Unite union or the Taxpayers’ Alliance want to reach the 38 million voters across the nation, it can’t be done for a tiny fraction of a penny per voter. This just incentivises rule-bending, with the creation of dubious, albeit legal, front sub-campaigns, which counter-productively actually reduces transparency. The limit should be at least £1 million.
• The full imprint on tiny adverts should be accessible by a standard little clickable symbol, not a wording in a small print.

Political advertising increases voter turnout, spreads new ideas and adds to democratic engagement. It is an important contributor to the democratic process and is to be preferred to behind the scenes lobbying done without any public knowledge. The thing about advertising is that it is done in public and is inherently an open form of political communication.

However, just as little could be done to stop Moscow gold reaching the Morning Star for decades, realistically nothing in the proposals will prevent foreign powers slush funding front groups with laundered money. Should we worry too much? You can’t really “buy an election” with adverts, because people exercise their own judgment, advertising doesn’t control people, it highlights issues and ideas, it calls voters to action. Advertising will not polish a t**d, it just covers it in glitter…

Gordon Rayner is The Telegraph’s political editor, today his byline was on a story claiming that “new advertisements have started appearing yesterday following criticism that the Government slogan was too vague”. An astonished government source tells Guido “Gordon is a moron, Telegraph executives helped devise the campaign, taxpayers just paid for it”.

It is not a government campaign, it is a backdoor subsidy for financially desperate newspapers to keep them alive. The campaign was created by the dead tree press trade body Newsworks, who explain in a press release:

“Branded content ran in today’s papers and online with the words “keep our distance, wash our hands, think of others and play our part” highlighted the heartfelt stories that show how the country is working together.

Sponsored stories include everything from a school trust delivering food hampers to the families most at need in Yorkshire (via the The Telegraph) to a team of engineers aiming to supply an incredible 10,000 ventilators within 100 days to hospitals across the country, something that would have normally taken over two years (via Kent Online).
The “All in, all together” campaign idea was developed by the newspaper industry as a way of delivering government communications in an intimate, human and compassionate tone that readers can relate to.”

Slagging off an advertiser in these financially challenging times for newspapers is brave. Slagging off the government for a campaign your own paper helped create is special…